Bhaskaran, J.

This appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.S.No. 308 of 1995. The 1st defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant in the A.F.A. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the 1st defendant has prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation with regard to plaint A schedule properties and has obtained valid title on the basis of a gift deed executed by his mother with regard to plaint B schedule properties. In appeal, the learned single Judge reversed the findings on both points and has granted a decree for partition of both A and B schedule properties.

2. The plaintiff is the sister of the 1st defendant. Plaint A schedule properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant and plaint B schedule properties belonged to their mother. The defence to the claim for partition of Plaint A schedule properties is adverse possession and limitation and for B schedule properties is a gift deed executed by the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

3. Ouseph Ouseph the father of the 1st defendant died on 10-7-1976. The parties are Syrian Christians in Kottayam District. There is no dispute that after the decision of the Supreme Court in Mary Ray v. State of Kerala (A. I. R. 1986 S.C. 1011), female children are also entitled to claim share in the properties of their parents. The points for consideration are (1) whether the claim of adverse possession and limitation set up by the 1st defendant is sustainable and (2) whether the gift deed executed by the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is proved to be a valid gift deed.

Point No. 1

4. With regard to the claim of adverse possession and limitation, the pleading of the 1st defendant is contained in paragraph 9 of the written statement. The relevant portion of the pleadings read as follows:

"From the date of death of the father in 1956 and at least from the date of the marriage of the plaintiff in 1960, the defendant had been in exclusive possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties, asserting absolute title to them to the knowledge of the plaintiff. He has made improvements thereon in his own right and has dealt with them accordingly. He has executed documents with regard to the same, asserting absolute title to them. He has been taking income from the properties from the dates abovementioned and appropriating it to himself. Plaintiff knew about all those hostile acts and assertion of hostile title as against her from the inception. She has not only objected to such acts, but has acted always accepting and conceding defendant's absolute title and possession over the properties. From the open, continuous, peaceable and as of right enjoyment as stated above of the plaint 'A' schedule properties for more than the statutory period, the defendant has perfected a valid title by prescription. Hence, plaint ‘A’ schedule items are not partible."

This has to be read along with the contention in paragraph 2 of the written statement wherein the 1st defendant has stated that as per the long established custom, practice and accepted personal law of the parties, the plaintiff was given Sthreedhanam amounting to Rs. 7,500 and gold ornaments worth 41 sovereigns and that was received as share of the assets due to the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff accepted the above said money and gold ornaments and considered the same as payment in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim against her father's estate as well as regarding the properties of the mother.

5. After the pronouncement of the law by the Supreme Court in Mary Roy's case A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1011, the daughter is in the position of a co-owner along with the son with respect to the properties left behind by the parents. In such cases, mere exclusive possession by one of the co-owners for any length of time by itself will not enable the co-owner to claim adverse possession. Therefo